County Council of Prince George's County v. Chaney Enterprises Ltd. Partnership

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “if the evidence before the court implicates the risk-utility test, it is the one that the court should use”
• affirming district court’s entry of summary judgment after the plaintiff’s expert was excluded because the defective car crusher’s safe alternative design was within province of an expert and outside scope of lay knowledge
• Illinois design defect actions “often involve specialized knowledge or expertise outside the layman’s knowledge,” and thus may require expert testimony
• a product such as a chair might be “so simple” such that expert testimony is unnecessary to explain to a jury why its design renders it unreasonably dangerous
• “[T]he case before us is not one that can be resolved exclusively on the basis of common ex- perience. [The plaintiff] needed expert testimony for this crit- ical element of his case (i.e. what design(s) would have been acceptable
• same for a design defect claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).